A meta-analysis of supplemental, adult-instructed one-to-one reading interventions for elementary students at risk for reading failure was conducted. Reading outcomes for 42 samples of students (N = 1,539) investigated in 29 studies reported between 1975 and 1998 had a mean weighted effect size of 0.41 when compared with controls. Interventions that used trained volunteers or college students were highly effective. For Reading Recovery interventions, effects for students identified as discontinued were substantial, whereas effects for students identified as not discontinued were not significantly different from zero. Two studies comparing one-to-one with small-group supplemental instruction showed no advantage for the one-to-one programs.One-to-one instruction, provided as a supplement to classroom teaching, is generally considered to be the most effective way of increasing students' achievement. The effectiveness of one-to-one instruction has been validated by empirical research, especially for students who are considered at risk for school failure or have been identified as having reading or learning disabilities (

Reading instruction and grouping practices provided for students with learning disabilities (LD) by special education teachers in the resource room were examined. Fourteen special education teachers representing 13 schools were observed three times over the course of 1 year and interviewed in the beginning and end of the school year. Results indicated that teachers primarily provided whole group reading instruction to relatively large groups of students (5 to 19), and little differentiated instruction or materials were provided despite the wide range (3 to 5 grade levels) of reading abilities represented. Most teachers identified whole language as their primary approach to reading, and little instruction that addressed word recognition or comprehension was observed.

This meta-analytic review investigated the relationship between reading outcomes for students with disabilities (learning disabilities, behavior disorders) and the grouping formats (studentpairs, smallgroups, combinations ofdifferentformats) used during their reading instruction. Twenty studies producedbetween 1975and 1995 met criteria for inclusion in Wortman, P. M. (1994). Judging research quality. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook ofresearch synthesis (pp. 97-109). New York: Russell Sage Foundation." Exceptional Childrent Indicates studies that were included in the metaanalysis.

The reading instruction, grouping practices, and outcomes for students with learning disabilities (LD) in resource room settings were examined. The study was a follow-up of an observational study done 2 years previously (Vaughn, Moody, & Schumm, 1998). Whole class instruction was the dominant grouping format although several teachers used small groups and individualized activities. Half of the special education teachers provided differentiated materials and instruction to match the learning levels of the students that they taught. Overall, no significant gains in reading comprehension were evidenced by students in this study. Results from the fluency tests also revealed inadequate student progress in reading. The failure of the present structure of the resource room to provide opportunities for a special education is discussed.

Twenty-nine third-grade teachers and selected students from their classes participated. Study 1 used teacher interviews and classroom observations to examine teachers' perceptions and practices for grouping for reading instruction; Study 2 examined the impact of these grouping practices on the academic progress, social progress, and attitudes about reading of students representing a range of achievement levels, including students with learning disabilities. Results indicated that, overall, teachers used whole class instruction for reading and the same materials for all students, including students with learning disabilities. Students with learning disabilities made little academic progress and their attitudes about reading did not improve over time.